Wednesday, June 08, 2011

How appropriate

To make his case, Muir drafts in some professional bleeding heart... [Emphasis mine.]

The core problem is poverty, says India, chair of the charity Leap, which works to help people out of poverty. "These are two disadvantaged, vulnerable groups, one leveraging the other. But the issue is deprivation. That £200 to him was same as £2m to someone else."

Gayle, on the other hand, viewed other people's lives as being worth a mere £200.

It seems to me that the "core problem" is that Santre "Riot"* Gayle is an unpleasant little bastard who—in valuing the lives of others so low—reveals that he is a severe danger to society and should never be let out of prison.

So, you know what?

Fuck him.

* You would have thought that his nickname might have given people a clue here...

You're aware, John B, that you're effectively arguing for an end to all criminal justice. You fucking tool.

Erm, no. If a child is proven to have murdered someone for cash, then of course we need to protect society from the child in question. That's why I like the English law concept of a life sentence - *unless they're safe to release, they don't get released, ever, and that's the law*.

But there's a difference (highlighted by all physiological studies into brain development) between someone who does unspeakable things at 15 and someone who does unspeakable things at 40. 15-year-olds don't have brains that work properly as adult brains; that's why, for example, we don't trust them to make the decision as to whether or not they should fuck somebody or have a beer, never mind whether they should forfeit their lives for doing something terrible.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, for a range of reasons, but I'd find it hard to become terribly upset about a grown-up getting hanged for bribing a daft kid the price of a pair of sunglasses to murder his wife. I'd be quite happy to debate/spend time with/generally respect someone who thinks that the dude in question deserved to die.

But someone who thinks the kid deserves to be hanged right off the bat, rather than jailed until he grows up and let out if he turns into a decent human being, is beneath contempt.

Snowdon, that is exactly what Muir appears to say but I doubt that's what he really believes. It's more likely that he and India automatically went for the standard Guardianista line that poverty explains everything without bothering to think through the logical consequences of their position.